If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

So whether or not @Town Heretic likes it or not, taxes are voluntary, so when one objects, his answer is "your free to leave the country" Amazing....I think I saw a video on this a long time ago...some movie producer made a documentary on this topic.

No, my answer is and only just was:

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

What I did was to note that taxes and participation are voluntary acts. The way you know this is that you can opt out. You are free to leave. And that's not my personal position, it's the objective truth.

I did that in the rational counter to a post attempting to paint taxation as theft.

Originally Posted by drbrumley

It just amazes me how one and sit there and say income taxes are voluntary

You must be positively flabbergasted by a sunrise.

Originally Posted by intojoy

That’s your fallen nature talking. Reasoning.

The days of worrying what trolls think about the state of my soul are long gone...so in that regard it's much like your honesty or reason.

The strange collection of extremists running for office as Republicans
Former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is running for Senate, after receiving a pardon from Trump for a contempt of court charge for failing to curb his anti-immigrant and anti-Latino racial profiling policies in violation of civil rights. Accused of racism and mistreatment of Latino prisoners, Arpaio failed to investigate over 400 sex crimes -- including the molestation of undocumented children
...
In West Virginia, Don Blankenship, the former coal mining company head who went to prison for a year on mine safety charges that were brought after a disaster that killed 29 miners, is challenging Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin. Blankenship claims it was not racist to call Sen. Mitch McConnell's father-in-law a "wealthy Chinaperson."
...
In Staten Island, New York, former FBI agent and Rep. Michael Grimm, who pleaded guilty to tax evasion, is making a comeback as a Trump loyalist after serving seven months behind bars. During his first stint in Congress, Grimm also threatened to break a reporter "in half" in 2014 following President Obama's State of the Union address.
...
Omar Navarro, who pleaded guilty to placing a tracking device on his wife's car. The extreme right wing, pro-Trump candidate has support from Michael Flynn and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, and Navarro says Roger Stone serves as his adviser. And Rep. Greg Gianforte, who pleaded guilty to assault after body slamming a reporter, is running for re-election in Montana.
...
One of these people is Arthur Jones, who denies the Holocaust and was denounced as a Nazi by Illinois Republicans, yet became the GOP nominee in Illinois' 3rd district.
...
Another is Paul Nehlen, a white supremacist who is a self-described "pro-White Christian American candidate" vying for House Speaker Paul Ryan's seat in Wisconsin. Black Trump supporters Diamond and Silk received $7,000 to star in a campaign ad supporting Nehlen. Twitter permanently banned Nehlen after he posted a photo depicting Prince Harry's biracial fiancée Meghan Markle as "Cheddar Man," a 9,000-year old dark-skinned prehistoric Briton.
...
Americans of all political affiliations must stop and wonder where this country is headed when hate group members, wingnuts and unrehabilitated ex-offenders are gunning for elected office representing one of the two major political parties in America. Some of them even have a chance of winning. This is all the proof you need that the GOP is running to the extremist right, and is threatening to push US politics off the cliff.

Republicans perhaps thought they could control and use those guys to build a coalition. But as more and more of them slither out of the sewers and join the GOP, it gets farther and farther away from reality. The unhinging of the right wing has become a serious threat to America.

Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

It's not really fair though, not for you. If you want to know if there is an authorized ChristianTM view on any matter that you can locate in the online or book, indexed Catechism of the Catholic Church, you can know it. Protestants may not agree. But you'd know the view of over 50% of Christians.

Oh, it's fair enough for me alright.
There are many and varying Christian Creeds, and if a Christian doesn't or cannot tell me what they believe then I will leave it at that.

Not all Protestants disagree on all divergence from Catholicism, but almost every Protestant agrees with Rome on something, which I find notable and remarkable.

[/QUOTE]
Of course they would! Just as Catholics will agree on 'somethings' in any Christian Creed.

But you haven't been able to answer the question either........ about any special dispensations for infants.

But.... Matthew 19:16 God said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein

The government has the right and the responsibility to build and maintain roads and other infrastructure. It does not have the right to care for people cradle to grave. It's not a right given to the government by God.

Because it is. It's redistribution of wealth. It's theft-by-receiving on the part of the person who receives it, and it's theft by taking on the part of the government.

Quite simply, provision for the poor was granted in LAWS made by God.
Some of these (not all) were shown to you and yet you could not acknowledge them.

Provision for the poor is not charity, it's God's law, so I don't think that you are a good Judge in this matter.

Oh, it's fair enough for me alright.
There are many and varying Christian Creeds, and if a Christian doesn't or cannot tell me what they believe then I will leave it at that.

'[/QUOTE]'
Of course they would! Just as Catholics will agree on 'somethings' in any Christian Creed.

You missed my point perhaps, that the 'Catholic Creed(s)' are the originals. Nothing Catholic resembles any other Christian thing---the Christian thing in question rather, resembles Catholicism, just as so many songs resemble Pachelbel's Canon, but we wouldn't say that Pachelbel's Canon resembles songs that were written after Pachelbel's Canon.

Originally Posted by eider

But you haven't been able to answer the question either........ about any special dispensations for infants.

You never asked me about infant dispensations. So that's probably why.

"Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

Free trade benefits all! We can always impose taxes on sales, which go to the state, not the importer.

Any idea what kind of sales tax we would need to generate 4 trillion dollars annually? If the GDP is 20 trillion, with 4 of that being government (federal anyway) spending, then we would need to get the 4 trillion from the 16 trillion in retail sales, so what's that, a 25% sales tax?

I'm not saying it's impossible.

"Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

Nobody characterized the militia as 'a mob,' but they most assuredly do have guns. And first among the requirements of the militia being 'well regulated' is that we know how to shoot them.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

It was purposed and that purpose was necessary for the preservation of our fledgling democracy, lacking the means at the disposal of our enemies.

It wasn't a question of just resources, every founder who wrote on the militia and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, anchored their view in our inalienable liberty. They to a man linked together what America is all about, with Americans being really well armed, and knowing how to shoot.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

We've long since surpassed them in that regard and no militia is going to be called up to defend the borders or our nation.

That's speculation. We've no idea what the future holds, especially the further out you go. Anything can happen, and if anything does happen where it's required that civilians take up arms against en enemy; that's only one of the reasons that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Gone also is the more pragmatic underpinning in large part, as people mostly neither hunt for their meat nor use weapons as a part of their livelihood.

No founder mentioned hunting wrt the right of the people to keep and bear arms, nor wrt the militia.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

And self-defense, the only reasonable remnant of scaffolding, is a thing that can be accomplished without the weapons and accessories that enable people to kill large numbers of other citizens before anyone has time register the intent.

Every military on the earth disagrees with you, which is why standard issue small arms are what they are, and they are not semiauto-only rifles. It'd be irresponsible to outfit your warriors with limited capacity clips and civilian AR15s, and send them into combat, because they wouldn't be able to defend themselves, because they'd be outgunned; which is another reason that the inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; because it is the right, when in a moment of need/danger/mortal peril, to not be outgunned.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

And I believe you're wrong, attempting to do for one right what is not done for any other. Literally every right is subject to the balancing of rights among men in exercise. I've illustrated the truth of that and the logical necessity, from speech to religion. Guns are no different, nor should they be.

The courts have clarified what is meant by the free exercise of speech and religion, and the First Amendment is not infringed. Meanwhile wrt the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is explicitly said that it 'shall not be infringed.'

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

You're not actually rebutting in substance here. The right to use what is at hand isn't the right to have at hand whatever it is you would use.

OK, but in order for it to not be a crime for me to grab a machine gun that is somehow innocently within my reach if ever my life or the lives of my loved ones, or of any other innocent people, are imperiled by a murderer, it must somehow integrate together with the whole law, so I don't know how it works. It just happens to appear to me to be in complete agreement with the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, so I leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

The problem of gun violence in this country is a problem of parts.

Intentional or not, and is the victim another person, or yourself, is how I break it down.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

One of those parts is the accessibility of guns capable of firing more than six rounds without a manual reloading, along with accessories that transform already absurdly lethal instruments into de facto machineguns.

The people involved are bigger factors, than what they use. As 'Archie Bunker' reminds us, it wouldn't be any better if innocent murder victims were 'pushed outta winduhs' instead of shot with a gun.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

I don't have a problem with guns

I should hope not, since they secure your liberty. If we want peace, prepare for war.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

, only with certain types of guns and accessories that transform them. I love my shotguns and my breech loaded rifle. I'm fond of my 9mm, but I'm ready to give it up. I can accomplish any reasonable need without it.

I'm prepared to kill to defend mine, and to defend the right of future generations to keep and bear arms from being infringed.

wrt pistols, I'd prefer that we carry long guns instead, and that we do away with concealed carry as the most common form of bearing arms, as it serves no deterrent effect, and murderers and rapists do respond to deterrents.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

We can't unless we like the idea of speaking Mandarin. Because without nuclear weapons China is the big kid on every block with little reason not to flex that muscle. The Russians can't afford to denuclearize with that reality on their border. So the world will have to change a bit before anyone seriously considers it and I'm not sure if any of the nuclear players ever will. Certainly not any time soon. Look at Pakistan and India eyeing their border and neighbor.

You're making my argument for me. The same reasons writ large why nations wouldn't agree to denuclearize, is why we the people oughtn't budge when gun haters like you call for even further infringements of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, than we already have. We have a right to not be outgunned. Or out-nuked, as the case may be, writ large.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

There's next to 0 dispute over the right to keep and bear arms though. Only a fringe from the left advance more.

40% of Democrats support repealing the Second Amendment.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

The conversation among most Americans isn't found there any more than most Americans favor the idea of machine gun sales at Walmart.

That is a good goal. Machine guns at Walmart. Much more in line with what we had here pre-1934, when the right was not infringed.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

The conversation is over where the reasoned line should be in terms of gun control.

The disagreement is over what 'infringed' means.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

If we want to dramatically impact gun violence and mass shooting we have any number of models among Western industrialized societies (all of which have guns in the hands of citizens) to use and improve the safety of our citizens. All it takes is recognizing the inherent absurdity of treating one right differently than we do any other and acting in our own rational self-interest.

First of all, as I said, I don't believe that gun control is parallel to forms of speech and religious practices that are not human rights. Just because you can utter it, or practice it under the guise of religion, does not mean that it is free speech. In fact, all the forms of speech and religious practice that are not free speech or religious liberty, are serious crimes.

The reason that gun control is not a parallel to these things, is because the keeping and bearing of weapons is not inherently criminal since it does not harm, while for example writing something untrue and harmful to someone's reputation (libel) is; it is a crime, and not free speech.

And secondly. There are countries with much stricter gun control, and with much more severe murder problems than here. Examination of the national civilian gun ownership rates compared with murder rates bears this out plainly.

"Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

'[/noparse]
Of course they would! Just as Catholics will agree on 'somethings' in any Christian Creed.

You missed my point perhaps, that the 'Catholic Creed(s)' are the originals. Nothing Catholic resembles any other Christian thing---the Christian thing in question rather, resembles Catholicism, just as so many songs resemble Pachelbel's Canon, but we wouldn't say that Pachelbel's Canon resembles songs that were written after Pachelbel's Canon.[/QUOTE]
Catholic Creeds.......... I'm surprised at how many fundamental aspects of Catholic Doctrine were Roman-Pagan doctrines reversed into Christianity.

There's nothing new under the Sun, really.

You never asked me about infant dispensations. So that's probably why.

Any idea what kind of sales tax we would need to generate 4 trillion dollars annually? If the GDP is 20 trillion, with 4 of that being government (federal anyway) spending, then we would need to get the 4 trillion from the 16 trillion in retail sales, so what's that, a 25% sales tax?

I'm not saying it's impossible.

You do not know what you are talking about. I am not being mean to you, just trying to let you know the truth. This so called, debt is what the government has given out in treasury bonds to pay fpr all the new satelight missles, to increase the military spending, and other wasteful things.

The debt is not held by foreign nations, which so many think, most of the debt is held by persons, like me, who buy these bonds to earn interest.

We like the interest, so we buy, now if you do not like this, you need to get it together with like-minded younger folks and protest the Fed making more bonds at higher prices, as I well know, when bond prices rise enough to where I cannot lose, why should I not purchase them? I get the interest and the bond value goes up.

We get rich and the next generation gets screwed. Not too many old farts with big investment portfolios will admit this and tell you the truth. The Holy Spirit is makes me write this!

They mostly aren't militias either. They're just people with guns standing behind the word.

It wasn't a question of just resources, every founder who wrote on the militia and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, anchored their view in our inalienable liberty. They to a man linked together what America is all about, with Americans being really well armed, and knowing how to shoot.

Makes perfect sense without a standing army. Makes sense that behind that was the pragmatic use of weapons for everything from livelihood to food.

On the utility of guns and hypotheticals

We've no idea what the future holds

It takes a lot of imagination to entertain a hypothetical where a force beats our combined armed and nuclear forces and is upset by a lot of Bubba's with guns they bought at the Walmart. And it only takes a news report to see what the present holds and trends are regarding mass shootings and gun violence.

Every military on the earth disagrees with you, which is why standard issue small arms are what they are, and they are not semiauto-only rifles.

No, they don't disagree with me. I'm all for arming them for their duty. An army is armed to be an aggressive force with a very different mission, which is why they have tanks, planes, missiles, etc. They aren't assembled to provide home security.

It'd be irresponsible to outfit your warriors with limited capacity clips and

It would be irresponsible to arm the police with nuclear weapons. But neither of those has anything to do with what I'm speaking to, which is dramatically impacting mass shooting and gun violence in this country by following any number of more successful models in other Western industrial democracies.

The courts have clarified what is meant by the free exercise of speech and religion, and the First Amendment is not infringed.

Just saying that doesn't make it so. We've made certain speech illegal. That's limiting what you are allowed to say without serious consequence, some of it civil and some criminal, depending. The same is true for any right and the present one under consideration warrants the same serious examination and not an elevation above that consideration for no justifiable, rational accounting.

The people involved are bigger factors, than what they use.

I disagree and suggest the facts speak contrary to your inclination. Limit access and you limit opportunity.

When Australia took those guns out of circulation they went from 13 mass shootings in 18 years to 0 in over 20 years. People didn't coincidentally, suddenly get better and sustain that improvement over time. What changed was that those people lacked the easy opportunity to do sudden, large scale violence with an easily concealed and transported weapon, one requiring little expertise and a nominal expense.

As 'Archie Bunker' reminds us, it wouldn't be any better if innocent murder victims were 'pushed outta winduhs' instead of shot with a gun.

So you believe that the nearly 60 murdered and 500 wounded in Las Vegas would have met the same fate another way?

The same reasons writ large why nations wouldn't agree to denuclearize, is why we the people oughtn't budge when gun haters like you

I'm a gun owner, not hater. I've been clear on my position in support of the 2nd from the start, as well as my own participation in that right. Now back to the problem in your attempt to parallel. Nuclear weapons are necessary for Russia because they can be overwhelmed in a conventional war by China. There's no real parallel here. I suppose if criminals outnumbered the lawful citizenry and were all carrying semi automatic and automatic weapons it would be different, though to be a meaningful parallel the criminals would have to outnumber the rest of us with a close to 7 to 1 advantage instead of being outnumbered by 2 to 1 if we include all criminals of any sort, instead of the violent sort, in which case our advantage grows.

40% of Democrats support repealing the Second Amendment.

Which if true means 60% don't, though given some of what they support it's no wonder. And the last poll I saw had working on 10% of Republicans agreeing with the repeal. But in the public at large only 21% would have it, so it's not a movement that has enough muscle to matter on the point. LINK

Just because you can utter it, or practice it under the guise of religion, does not mean that it is free speech.

If you can say or write it (and a bit more than this) it is absolutely speech. The distinction is over protection, which goes back to that line we draw that restricts any semblance of an unrestrained right. With religion, you can earnestly believe that as an expression of your faith you need to cut the heart out of a willing participant, but it's not going to work out.

The reason that gun control is not a parallel to these things, is because the keeping and bearing of weapons is not inherently criminal since it does not harm, while for example writing something untrue and harmful to someone's reputation (libel) is; it is a crime, and not free speech.

You just changed your focus in mid stream there. You compared ownership, not use, with use, not possession. That's a neat trick, but fails for it. Writing a known falsehood would be parallel with using a firearm to rob someone. Both acts would constitute proscribed exercise.

They mostly aren't militias either. They're just people with guns standing behind the word.

Makes perfect sense without a standing army. Makes sense that behind that was the pragmatic use of weapons for everything from livelihood to food.

On the utility of guns and hypotheticals

It takes a lot of imagination to entertain a hypothetical where a force beats our combined armed and nuclear forces and is upset by a lot of Bubba's with guns they bought at the Walmart. And it only takes a news report to see what the present holds and trends are regarding mass shootings and gun violence.

No, they don't disagree with me. I'm all for arming them for their duty. An army is armed to be an aggressive force with a very different mission, which is why they have tanks, planes, missiles, etc. They aren't assembled to provide home security.

It would be irresponsible to arm the police with nuclear weapons. But neither of those has anything to do with what I'm speaking to, which is dramatically impacting mass shooting and gun violence in this country by following any number of more successful models in other Western industrial democracies.

Just saying that doesn't make it so. We've made certain speech illegal. That's limiting what you are allowed to say without serious consequence, some of it civil and some criminal, depending. The same is true for any right and the present one under consideration warrants the same serious examination and not an elevation above that consideration for no justifiable, rational accounting.

I disagree and suggest the facts speak contrary to your inclination. Limit access and you limit opportunity.

When Australia took those guns out of circulation they went from 13 mass shootings in 18 years to 0 in over 20 years. People didn't coincidentally, suddenly get better and sustain that improvement over time. What changed was that those people lacked the easy opportunity to do sudden, large scale violence with an easily concealed and transported weapon, one requiring little expertise and a nominal expense.

So you believe that the nearly 60 murdered and 500 wounded in Las Vegas would have met the same fate another way?

I'm a gun owner, not hater. I've been clear on my position in support of the 2nd from the start, as well as my own participation in that right. Now back to the problem in your attempt to parallel. Nuclear weapons are necessary for Russia because they can be overwhelmed in a conventional war by China. There's no real parallel here. I suppose if criminals outnumbered the lawful citizenry and were all carrying semi automatic and automatic weapons it would be different, though to be a meaningful parallel the criminals would have to outnumber the rest of us with a close to 7 to 1 advantage instead of being outnumbered by 2 to 1 if we include all criminals of any sort, instead of the violent sort, in which case our advantage grows.

Which if true means 60% don't, though given some of what they support it's no wonder. And the last poll I saw had working on 10% of Republicans agreeing with the repeal. But in the public at large only 21% would have it, so it's not a movement that has enough muscle to matter on the point. LINK

If you can say or write it (and a bit more than this) it is absolutely speech. The distinction is over protection, which goes back to that line we draw that restricts any semblance of an unrestrained right. With religion, you can earnestly believe that as an expression of your faith you need to cut the heart out of a willing participant, but it's not going to work out.

You just changed your focus in mid stream there. You compared ownership, not use, with use, not possession. That's a neat trick, but fails for it. Writing a known falsehood would be parallel with using a firearm to rob someone. Both acts would constitute proscribed exercise.

We ALL possess the inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms. LGBTs, women, blacks, Latinos, convicts. Muslims. Everybody. We are not racists, we are not sexist, we are not homophobes. We want you all armed. Who volunteers people we hate to have as many of the most deadly guns as you can safely secure when you're not using them? We don't hate you. We aren't afraid of you. We wish you peace. And if you want peace, prepare for war. So go get your guns, and let's make it easier to get your guns, not harder. Let's abolish plain Second Amendment infringements like 'gun-free zones,' that are proven to be potential sitting-duck human fish-in-a-barrel's. Why can't we carry guns openly? That's an infringement. Murderers and rapists are real, and they respond to deterrents, and innocent people carrying guns openly is a deterrent.

"Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

We ALL possess the inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms. LGBTs, women, blacks, Latinos, convicts. Muslims. Everybody. We are not racists, we are not sexist, we are not homophobes. We want you all armed. Who volunteers people we hate to have as many of the most deadly guns as you can safely secure when you're not using them? We don't hate you. We aren't afraid of you. We wish you peace. And if you want peace, prepare for war. So go get your guns, and let's make it easier to get your guns, not harder. Let's abolish plain Second Amendment infringements like 'gun-free zones,' that are proven to be potential sitting-duck human fish-in-a-barrel's. Why can't we carry guns openly? That's an infringement. Murderers and rapists are real, and they respond to deterrents, and innocent people carrying guns openly is a deterrent.